Senator Michael Roberson listens to a speaker during a committee hearing at the Nevada Legislature building in Carson City on March 30, 2017.(Photo11: JASON BEAN/RGJ, RENO GAZETTE-JOURNAL-USA TODAY NETWORK)Buy Photo

The proposed state constitutional amendment, backed by Republican state Senate leader Michael Roberson, would make it illegal for Nevada cities and counties to become “sanctuary communities” that do not cooperate with federal immigration authorities.

Wednesday’s 6-1 decision overturned part of a district court order that would’ve kept the measure off the November ballot. But the justices agreed with civil rights lawyers who argued the current language is unconstitutional because it doesn't describe the potential effects of what critics say is an "anti-immigrant" initiative.

The high court sent the case back to Carson City District Court where the justices say Prevent Sanctuary Cities, the political action committee that sponsored the effort, should have a chance to amend the measure to explain potential impacts.

Following the ruling on Wednesday, the ACLU of Nevada claimed victory in a statement.

“We’re thrilled the Court recognized this petition’s deceptive nature," said Amy Rose, the ACLU's legal director. "This is a victory for Nevada’s immigrant communities and also for Nevada voters, who deserve to know exactly what they’re signing when endorsing a petition that would alter the Nevada Constitution.”

The anti-sanctuary cities PAC in February declined to say how many signatures they’ve gathered or how much cash they’ve raised in support of the proposed ballot measure. It didn’t raise or spend a dime in 2017, according to the group's most recent campaign finance report.

Petition proponents have a little more than a month to re-draft the measure and hand in more than 112,000 signatures needed to qualify for November's ballot.

Roberson, who is running for Nevada lieutenant governor, said in a statement that the ruling may have merely opened up new avenues for putting the measure before voters.

"We hope to have sufficient time to obtain the necessary signatures by June 19 in order to qualify for the 2018 ballot," he wrote. "Regardless, today's ruling is a victory in the longer term.

"Obtaining certainty on the ballot language enables us to also consider a statutory initiative whereby we would have until mid-November to obtain signatures for the 2020 ballot. Our efforts have been delayed, but our right to bring this question to the voters for their decision will not be denied."